Archive for : June, 2019

Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder, calls for a Declaration of Digital Independence

Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder, calls for a Declaration of Digital Independencen

nIn 2001, an entirely different digital age, still hopeful and still in many ways in its infancy, Larry Sanger was working on co-founding Wikipedia, one of the largest projects on the internet.nAnd the state of the digital world he and the rest of humanity are waking up to every day now has given him enough cause for concern to motivate his “Declaration of Digital Independence.”nThe document details all the things that have gone terribly wrong over the years as the tech industry has positioned itself at the inextricable core of global economies and societies.nSanger also lays out proposals on how to address these deep flaws and fix them – considering the situation and speaking from the point of view of an online pioneer, who has seen the new digital age dawn and take its current shape.nHe observes that enthusiasm for what would become tech giants and their technologies and even their business models – exploitative of users and their privacy – continued for years regardless of the red flags.n“But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative animus guides the centralized networks of the Internet and the corporations behind them,” the Wikipedia co-founder – who has since become critical of the online encyclopedia – writes in his declaration.nSanger argues in favor of replacing the overbearing and overpowering centralized behemoths with decentralized networks to ensure the existence of what he refers to as “unalienable digital rights”: free speech, privacy, and security.nIt is precisely in these areas that he sees the greatest ills of the modern digital world.nLarge corporations dominating the digital world are accused of arbitrary “in-house” moderation. Sanger suggests that Big Tech has its political biases that result in bans, demonetization, and other means of suppression of users and content.n“They have banned, shadow-banned, throttled, and demonetized both users and content based on political considerations, exercising their enormous corporate power to influence elections globally,” Sanger says. “They have unfairly blocked accounts, posts, and means of funding on political or religious grounds, preferring the loyalty of some users over others.”nWhat this practice amounts to is essentially censorship, that is abused to “influence elections globally.”nOne way this is done, according to Sanger, is to promote controversial topics by means of algorithms, creating an atmosphere not conducive to rational discourse.nAt the heart of these empires is their ability to make a vast amount of money – and when it comes to tech giants, the way is to collect and share their users’ personal data.nThis invasion of rights and privacy is made possible in part thanks to confusing and vague terms of service, that fail to clearly explain to users what happens to their data.nWhile in possession of vast quantities of such data, little attention is being paid to storing and handling it securely, Sanger suggests.nAnd to make sure that profit is maximized, large corporations are accused of monetizing personal data even if users pay for their products.nTo the same end – unfettered access to data that feeds their business models – Sanger writes, “they have avoided using strong, end-to-end encryption when users have a right to expect total privacy.”nSanger also faults Big Tech for making it difficult or impossible for users to own their own data by means of searching or exporting it and creating walled gardens out of the need to make ever more money, shutting competition and user choice out and down.nThe Wikipedia co-founder accuses Big Tech executives and their companies of treating users in exploitative ways and with contempt and sees no likelihood of this situation changing on its own.nFor that reason, he argues in favor of decentralization and common standards and protocols as a means to counter privacy, free speech, and security undermining policies of our current digital overlords.nThe declaration – that Sanger invites his users to join by signing – introduces the concept of decentralized social networks.nAmong the main principles presented in the document is the idea of freedom to publish data as free individuals, and claim legal and moral ownership to it.nThe principles also call for content to be shared from sources controlled by users, rather than centralized databases controlled by large companies.nThe data found on such social networks must also be protected by end-to-end encryption, Sanger continues.nThe principles urge common, open standards and protocols for such networks, removing proprietary control exercised by companies.nThe document also speaks against the current practice of ranking content algorithmically in a way that ignores users’ own preferences.nAnd lastly, the new system of social networks should not discriminate against users based on their technical skill, Sanger writes.nIn the proposed new digital environment, privacy-affecting settings and rules should not be difficult to find and use, as is often the case today.n

nI do think we need something like this. However, that doesn’t mean the social media companies will abide by it. We’re definitely seeing more decentralization though, with everything going on in the Feddiverse!n#freespeech #privacy #security #federation #internet

Project Veritas sends letters to Congress suggesting Google is “likely in violation of federal election law”

Project Veritas sends letters to Congress suggesting Google is “likely in violation of federal election lawn

nInvestigative reporting unit Project Veritas has sent letters to members of Congress alleging that Google is potentially violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and suggesting that Congress should reconsider the protections Google enjoys under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).nProject Veritas is basing these claims on its recent investigative report which revealed that Google is using biased artificial intelligence (AI) to manipulate its search results and planning to prevent another “Trump situation” in 2020.nIn the letters, Project Veritas argues that under the FECA, corporations such as Google are prohibited from using their resources to support or oppose a candidate for office and that the examples of Google using its resources to alter search results, impact electoral internet traffic, or otherwise prevent a candidate from winning an election, as showcased in its investigative report, are “likely in violation of federal election law.”nProject Veritas also suggests that the immunity Google enjoys under Section 230 of the CDA, which protects it from liability for third-party content hosted on its platforms, should be reconsidered because Google is using biased AI to produce search results based on its own subjective determination of what is fair rather than what is objectively true. Project Veritas says that the underlying principle of the CDA is to protect free speech but Google’s manipulation of search results along with other forms of censorship and content suppression that the company employs are damaging free speech interests.nAdditionally, Project Veritas points to its previous investigations into Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter as further examples of big tech platforms preventing free speech and being “curated echo chambers.”nProject Veritas sent the letter to the following members of Congress:n• Senator Ted Cruzn• Rep. Louis Gohmertn• Senator Elizabeth Warrenn• Senator Mike Leen• Senator Josh Hawleyn• Senator Richard Blumenthaln• Senator Ed Markeyn• Rep. David Cicillinen• Rep. Steve Kingn• Rep. Jim Jordann• Senator Mark WarnernGohmert and Cruz have both commented on the report since it was released with Gohmert saying it “shows Google’s biases are now a threat to a free and fair election” and Cruz questioning Google about its contents during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.n

n I can’t help agreeing with Project Varitas. I think we should probably reevaluate Google’s sec. 230 protection. I also think this should be done on a case-by-case basis, instead of doing it for all internet platforms. Even just allowing Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s protection to lapse all at once would most likely cause problems, and not make much room for competition with them.+

YouTube removes Project Veritas video exposing Google’s biased AI

YouTube removes Project Veritas video exposing Google’s biased AIn

nIn a move that many are seeing as blatant corporate censorship, YouTube has taken down the bombshell Project Veritas report which revealed that its parent company Google is using AI to filter out content that creates undesirable outcomes for Google.nThe takedown of this video seemed to be imminent when Project Veritas received two questionable YouTube privacy complaints about sections of the report. Project Veritas had received similar privacy complaints on its previous investigative report into Pinterest’s internal blacklists which led to that report being taken down by YouTube. It was suspected that YouTube would eventually respond to these new privacy complaints in the same way and delete Project Veritas’ report on Google’s biased AI.nWhile YouTube has taken down the video under the veil of privacy complaints, the reasoning is suspicious because the complaints were filed against sections of the video featuring Google employees who were suggesting that Google’s AI is biased. Presumably, these complaints were filed by at least one of these Google employees which would mean that both employees of Google and the company itself have used privacy complaints to censor information that’s undesirable to Google.nAccording to James O’Keefe, the head of Project Veritas, the video was nearing 1 million views and 50,000 likes when it was deleted – a huge amount of exposure and engagement considering it was live for less than 24 hours.n Although the video’s no longer on YouTube, it is still available on other platforms including BitChute where it’s rapidly gaining traction and already has 80,000+ views.nThis is probably the most egregious example of big tech censorship we’ve seen to date. While Project Veritas’ previous investigative report on Pinterest’s internal blacklists was heavily censored by YouTube and Twitter, Pinterest is a separate corporate entity. In this instance, we’re now seeing a single corporate entity seemingly use its own employees and subsidiaries to censor content which the parent company Google probably doesn’t want the public to see.n

n#Google #Youtube #censorship #freespeech

Project Varitas video on Google’s election interference efforts.

Unfortunately I couldn’t find the Bitchute embed for this. I’m sure it exists, but a link will have to suffice.n This is one of the many reasons I don’t use Google for my day-to-day searches. Although I don’t think their efforts will be in any way successful.n#Google #censorship #freespeech

Homeland Security Committee hearing on social media companies efforts to counter online terrorism content.

Oh, and censor conservative speech. That came up quite a bit during the hearing. Especially after what Project Varitas released.nn#Facebook #Google #Twitter #socialmedia #censorship #freespeech

Facebook-Owned WhatsApp Threatens to Sue Users Over Off-Platform Misbehavior

Facebook-Owned WhatsApp Threatens to Sue Users Over Off-Platform Misbehaviorn

nFacebook-owned Whatsapp, a messaging and voice over IP platform pledged to sue users over off-platform misbehavior.nWhatsApp threatened users who dare to violate its Draconian rules with lawsuits even if the users break the rules outside of the messaging app.nEven worse, the only judge is an AI.n“[B]eginning on December 7, 2019, WhatsApp will take legal action against those we determine are engaged in or assisting others in abuse that violates our Terms of Service, such as automated or bulk messaging, or non-personal use, even if that determination is based on information solely available to us off our platform,” WhatsApp warned in a FAQ entry Monday.n“For example, off-platform information includes public claims from companies about their ability to use WhatsApp in ways that violate our Terms. This serves as notice that we will take legal action against companies for which we only have off-platform evidence of abuse if that abuse continues beyond December 7, 2019, or if those companies are linked to on-platform evidence of abuse before that date,” the company added.nWhatsApp claimed it will ban users “based on machine-learning classifiers.” — In other words, algorithms will continue to suppress people who are messaging each other and sharing information.nnAs usual, the company did not get into specifics about how it will use algorithms to find offenders of its very vague Terms of Service, but its parent company Facebook has endless surveillance tools in its arsenal.nWhatsApp is the second tech company to target users’ off-platform behavior. In 2017, Twitter announced it will be banning users based off of behavior both on and off the platform.nThanks to the tech tyrants surveilling and judging people’s actions, the US is close to having the same oppressive social credit score system that China implemented this year.n

n Companies like Facebook and Twitter should stick to what they say they were founded to do, and not start suing people like the RIAA did in the late 90s and early 2000s. I hate #Facebook with a passion, I often think about deleting my account. However, it’s the only place that most of my family has an account on. Never-the-less, I think I’ll give myself a birthday present and finally do it this year!n#Socialmedia #surveillance

DHS to Move Biometric Data on Hundreds of Millions of People to Amazon Cloud

DHS to Move Biometric Data on Hundreds of Millions of People to Amazon Cloudn

nThe Homeland Security Department is looking to upgrade the software it uses to analyze biometric data on hundreds of millions of people around the globe, and it plans to store that information in Amazon’s cloud.nThe agency’s Office of Biometric Identity Management will replace its legacy biometric analysis platform, called the Automated Biometric Identification System, or IDENT, with a new, more robust system hosted by Amazon Web Services, according to a request for information released Monday.nIDENT essentially serves as an enterprisewide clearinghouse for troves of biometric and biographic data collected by the Transportation Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service and other Homeland Security components. The system links fingerprint, iris and face data to biographic information, allowing officials to quickly identify suspected terrorists, immigration violators, criminals and anyone else included in their databases.nIn total, IDENT contains information on more than 250 million people, a Homeland Security spokesperson told Nextgov.nAccording to the solicitation, Homeland Security is in the process of replacing IDENT with the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology System, or HART. The new system will include the same biometric recognition features as its predecessor, and potentially additional tools that could identify individuals based on DNA, palm prints, scars, physical markings and tattoos.nWhereas IDENT stores records in government-run data centers, the Homeland Security solicitation states “HART will reside in the Amazon Web Services (AWS) FedRAMP certified GovCloud.” Further, “biometric matching capabilities for fingerprint, iris, and facial matching will be integrated with HART in the Amazon Web Services GovCloud.” Amazon Web Services will also store HART’s biometric image data.nAmazon Web Services’ GovCloud US-East and US-West regions are data centers specifically built by the company to house some of the government’s most restricted information. AWS is no stranger to hosting sensitive government data, having already claimed the CIA, Defense Department, NASA and other federal agencies as customers in part because of perceived security improvements over government legacy systems.nWhen reached for comment, an AWS spokesperson referred inquiries to DHS.nIn 2018, Northrop Grumman won a $95 million contract to develop the first two stages of the HART system, and its contract is set to expire in 2021. The department plans to use responses to the latest solicitation to inform its strategy for further developing the platform, the DHS spokesperson said.nSpecifically, officials are asking vendors for ideas on how to build those multiple identification functions into the new system, while leaving room to add any new recognition “modalities” as they arise. Officials also want input on developing a handful of general reporting, analytics and search tools, as well as desktop and mobile web portals where Homeland Security employees can access the system.nInterested vendors must respond to the request by July 17.nIn addition to the hundreds of millions of records stored locally in its IDENT system, Homeland Security can also access swaths of biometric information housed at other agencies.nAccording to the solicitation, the agency shares biometric data and technology with the Defense Department and the FBI, which can access some 640 million photos for its own facial recognition operations. Officials also said they can tap into the State Department’s Consular Consolidated Database—which contained nearly 500 million passport, visa and expat records as of 2016 as well as the databases of “several foreign governments as well as state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement agencies.”nThe government’s use of biometric technology, particularly facial recognition, has come under sharp scrutiny in recent months. Members of the House Oversight Committee have expressed broad bipartisan support for reining in the use of biometrics at agencies like the FBI, and on Monday, a group of lawmakers raised concerns about CBP’s expanding facial recognition program.n

n That’s nearly the entire US population. I’m glad congress is concerned about the issue, because honestly agencies like the FBI, NSA, TSA, etc shouldn’t have access to this kind of technology, especially in real-time, with queries performed instantly via AWS. This makes me want to completely cover myself when I go out. However, I have no religious or other reasons for doing so.n#surveillance

Google Just Got Roped Into U.S. Government’s Case Against Roger Stone

nGoogle is about to become embroiled in one of the most high-profile criminal cases in recent American history. The Department of Justice has demanded the tech giant hand over data to help it piece together its investigation of longtime Donald Trump advisor and ally Roger Stone, according to a June 5 order seen by Forbes.nThe federal government is seeking to put together a timeline of Stone’s public statements about his apparent contact with WikiLeaks regarding the infamous 2016 leaks of Democratic party communications. Investigators believe YouTube upload dates and times of eight specific videos will help. YouTube is owned by Google.nThe videos of interest to the DOJ include footage of Stone’s appearances at Republican meetups and on right-wing shows like InfoWars, as well as public comments from Wikileaks chief Julian Assange. The videos were uploaded by various YouTube accounts, not by Stone or Wikileaks.nWhat the government wants from GooglenIn an indictment filed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team in January 2019, it was alleged that Stone lied to the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2017 about the nature of his communications with WikiLeaks regarding emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager John Podesta. Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements, obstruction of the government’s investigation and tampering with a witness.nTo get their timeline straight, Stone’s accusers want Google to hand over YouTube video upload dates of Stone’s claims related to his contact with Assange’s organization. The videos include footage of Stone’s discussion of WikiLeaks on Alex Jones’ InfoWars and on the former Breitbart commentator and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch’s show. Google has also been ordered to provide upload information of a YouTube video of a Stone speech in Broward County, Florida, in which he admits to speaking with Assange. He later claimed that he hadn’t spoken to Assange directly but only through an intermediary, as per the January indictment.nThe government, in its application for the Google order, doesn’t specify why it’s seeking upload dates rather than simply relying on the dates the videos were made available to the public. The DOJ declined to comment beyond what was in court documents. It’s likely that investigators want to get a sense of how far in advance Stone’s comments were made ahead of their publication on YouTube. nProsecutors also want the upload date for a videotaped statement that the head of “Organization ”—Julian Assange—made on or about June 12, 2016. In the video, Assange claimed WikiLeaks had “emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.”nA Google spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Forbes: “We have a well-established process for managing requests for user data. We only respond to valid legal requests, and don’t comment on specific cases.” nBut in June 2016 an attorney for the government spoke with Google; the tech giant said it would provide the requested upload dates only if it was handed an official order, according to the prosecutors’ request for Google info.nStone’s links to WikiLeaksnStone’s lawyers declined to comment. He has repeatedly denied having any foreknowledge of the Wikileaks files or direct contact with Assange. Wikileaks previously said neither Assange nor the organization had been in contact with Stone. Stone, though, has admitted to brief contact with WikiLeaks over Twitter direct messages and a hacker Guccifer 2.0, who has since been accused of being a Russian military intelligence agent.nThere is other evidence against Stone other than his public comments, according to Mueller’s January indictment. It’s alleged that around June or July 2016, the former Republican party operative told Trump campaign officials that WikiLeaks was ready to release stolen data related to the DNC and Podesta. Julian Assange’s leaking organization published the first batch of DNC documents on July 22. It wasn’t until October that the Podesta emails were leaked. The government alleged that Stone continued to communicate with the Trump campaign team about WikiLeaks and its future releases during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.nStone’s tweets from 2016 regarding WikiLeaks have also drawn much attention. In August 2016, he took to Twitter to say: “Trust me, it will soon [be] the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary,” he tweeted. In October, a matter of days ahead of the Podesta leaks, Stone tweeted: “Payload coming. #Lockthemup.” The Atlantic also reported the Stone had made contact with WikiLeaks over Twitter direct messages.n

n I’m more likely to believe Wikileaks. I think the organization would have a pretty good handle on who it had contact with, even through intermediaries.n#Wikileaks #legal

Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issuesn

nWASHINGTON — Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.nThe new charges were part of an expanded indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly raised the stakes of the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related count brought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.nThe charges are the latest twist in a career in which Mr. Assange has morphed from a crusader for radical transparency to fugitive from a Swedish sexual assault investigation, to tool of Russia’s election interference, to criminal defendant in the United States.nMr. Assange vaulted to global fame nearly a decade ago as a champion of openness about what governments secretly do. But with this indictment, he has become the target for a case that could open the door to criminalizing activities that are crucial to American investigative journalists who write about national security matters.nThe case has nothing to do with Russia’s election interference in 2016, when Mr. Assange’s organization published Democratic emails stolen by Russia as part of its covert efforts to help elect President Trump. Instead, it focuses on Mr. Assange’s role in the leak of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables and military files by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.nJustice Department officials did not explain why they decided to charge Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act — a step also debated within the Obama administration but ultimately not taken. Although the indictment could establish a precedent that deems actions related to obtaining, and in some cases publishing, state secrets to be criminal, the officials sought to minimize the implications for press freedoms. They noted that most of the new charges were related to obtaining the secret document archives, as opposed to publishing them. In the counts that deemed the publication of the files a crime, prosecutors focused on a handful of documents revealing the names of people who provided information to the United States in dangerous places like war zones.n“Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions,” John Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said at a briefing with reporters. “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the department’s policy to target them for reporting.”nBut Mr. Assange, he said, was “no journalist.” Mr. Demers accused him of conspiring with Ms. Manning to obtain classified information. “No responsible actor, journalist or otherwise, would purposefully publish the names of individuals he or she knew to be confidential human sources in a war zone, exposing them to the gravest of dangers,” he said.n

nNow, those of us who’ve supported #Wikileaks and #Assange since 2010 are all saying, “we told you so.” They were right all along.n I tried posting this last month, only to end up in the spam filter, so now here it is.

Julian Assange’s U.S. Extradition Hearing Is Set for February

Julian Assange’s U.S. Extradition Hearing Is Set for February.n

nLONDON — A British court on Friday set February 2020 as the date for the full extradition hearing on whether Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, should be sent to the United States to face a slew of charges, including several under the Espionage Act.nMr. Assange, 47, appeared by video link from Belmarsh Prison on the outskirts of London for his first hearing since the United States formally requested his extradition. He had skipped a previous hearing because, his lawyer said, he was too ill to appear. Some experts, including a United Nations official, said he had exhibited signs of a deteriorating physical and mental condition.nMr. Assange’s hearing came days after Britain’s home secretary, Sajid Javid, signed the extradition request from the United States and expressed his support for Mr. Assange’s detention.n“He’s rightly behind bars,” Mr. Javid told BBC’s Radio 4.nProtesters holding signs that read “Hands off Assange” outside Westminster Magistrates Court in London on Friday denounced Mr. Javid’s decision and demanded Mr. Assange’s release. If the court rules in the United States’ favor, the extradition process is expected to be a long and complicated one.nProsecutors from the United States had initially charged Mr. Assange with a single count of computer hacking, and said he had conspired with the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer network, a crime punishable by up to five years in an American prison.nBut in May, prosecutors added 17 charges to the list, including violating the Espionage Act, a move that has raised profound First Amendment issues. Most of the new charges were related to obtaining the secret document archives as opposed to publishing them, Justice Department officials said. But some worry it could set a precedent to criminalize future acts of national-security journalism.nThe charges stem from Mr. Assange’s purported involvement in a 2010 leak of hundreds of thousands of classified documents, mostly related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that proved damaging and embarrassing for the United States and its allies.nJournalists and supporters of Mr. Assange gathered on Friday outside a London court, where he appeared at a hearing by video link.n In a brief court appearance on Friday, Mr. Assange, wearing glasses and a gray T-shirt, denied cracking a Pentagon network password as prosecutors read out the accusations against him, according to Reuters.n“It is important that people aren’t fooled into believing that WikiLeaks is anything but a publisher,” Mr. Assange told the court. “The U.S. government has tried to mislead the press.”nMr. Assange is serving a 50-week sentence for jumping bail in Britain and is still appealing that sentence. He was removed from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in April and promptly arrested, seven years after first seeking refuge there to avoid extradition in a Swedish investigation into allegations made in 2010 by a woman who said Mr. Assange had sexually assaulted her.nLast month, Sweden announced it would be reopening the investigation into allegations of rape. A Swedish court has ruled that Mr. Assange should not be extradited to Sweden for the investigation, though he would still be questioned in the case while he is imprisoned in Britain.nThat decision removed the potential for dueling extradition requests from the United States and Sweden, at least for now.nOutside the courtroom on Friday, Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer for Mr. Assange, said her client was being held in the hospital’s health care ward and “continues to suffer the permanent and difficult adverse health impacts” of his long-term stay in the Ecuadorean Embassy, and now in prison.n“He’s under a huge amount of pressure, and we are very concerned about him,” she told reporters.nLast month, a United Nations expert on torture said that an examination of Mr. Assange showed an alarming deterioration in his mental and physical state, and that he was suffering from psychological torture as a result of the cases brought by Britain, Sweden and the United States.nThe United Nations special rapporteur on torture and ill treatment, Nils Melzer, said in an interview that Mr. Assange was “extremely jumpy and stressed.”n

n#Wikileaks #Assange #legal

Facebook reportedly thinks there’s no ‘expectation of privacy’ on social media

Facebook reportedly thinks there’s no ‘expectation of privacy’ on social median

nFacebook on Wednesday reportedly argued that it didn’t violate users’ privacy rights because there’s no expectation of privacy when using social media. n”There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,” Facebook counsel Orin Snyder said during a pretrial hearing to dismiss a lawsuit stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, according to Law 360. nThe company reportedly didn’t deny that third parties accessed users’ data, but it instead told US District Judge Vince Chhabria that there’s no “reasonable expectation of privacy” on Facebook or any other social media site.n The social network’s legal argument comes as the world’s largest social network is more publicly trying to convince people that it knows how to protect their personal information. Earlier this month, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said she and CEO Mark Zuckerberg will do “whatever it takes” to keep people safe on Facebook. nCalls to curtail Zuckerberg’s control over Facebook have escalated as the company continues to be plagued by problems, including issues around data privacy and security. Facebook is expecting to face a record $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission for its alleged failure to protect user privacy. nThe company’s data-handling practices have been called into question in the wake of the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, during which personal information on up to 87 million Facebook users was improperly accessed. nChhabria appears set on letting at least some of the lawsuit continue, saying in

CCN Is Shutting Down, What Caused Such A Drastic Fall In AMP Traffic and Why?

CCN Is Shutting Down, What Caused Such A Drastic Fall In AMP Traffic and Why?n

nOne of the most popular and influential finance and crypto news media outlets, CCN, has recently announced its shutting down. As it said, the reasons include an extreme fall in mobile search traffic, small revenue and Google’s monopoly on media in the world.n Update. The changes touch the search algorithms which directly influence daily traffic. In figures, the CCN’s web traffic dropped by 53% overnight, while the AMP traffic went down by 71%. CCN tried to resolve the situation by asking for guidance in Google’s Webmasters Forum. However, there were no specific details of the reasons.nCCN is not the only one who suffered from Google’s update. According to the, Coindesk also showed a big drop in traffic, almost 35%; Cointelegraph has experienced a 21% drop in mobile search traffic. nAnother reason why the team of CCN decided to stop its activity is that its daily revenue decreased by 91%. The staff consists of more than 60 people (full-timers and part-timers), except for ads they did not receive any funding from other parties. nThe other factor is the monopoly of Google in the media sector. CCN provided information that Google controls 88.47% of the global desktop search market (April 2019). The founder of CCN, Jonas Borchgrevink, personally calls for the world to stop Google from taking over the world of media aka the world of freedom and justice.n